The Experts below are selected from a list of 269580 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Adrien Detges - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Sampling bias in climate–Conflict Research
    Nature Climate Change, 2018
    Co-Authors: Courtland Adams, Jon Barnett, Adrien Detges
    Abstract:

    A systematic review shows that climate–Conflict Research tends to focus on a few accessible regions characterized by violent Conflict rather than those most vulnerable to climate change, which may inflate the perceived prevalence of links between climate change and violent Conflict. Critics have argued that the evidence of an association between climate change and Conflict is flawed because the Research relies on a dependent variable sampling strategy^ 1 – 4 . Similarly, it has been hypothesized that convenience of access biases the sample of cases studied (the ‘streetlight effect’^ 5 ). This also gives rise to claims that the climate–Conflict literature stigmatizes some places as being more ‘naturally’ violent^ 6 – 8 . Yet there has been no proof of such sampling patterns. Here we test whether climate–Conflict Research is based on such a biased sample through a systematic review of the literature. We demonstrate that Research on climate change and violent Conflict suffers from a streetlight effect. Further, studies which focus on a small number of cases in particular are strongly informed by cases where there has been Conflict, do not sample on the independent variables (climate impact or risk), and hence tend to find some association between these two variables. These biases mean that Research on climate change and Conflict primarily focuses on a few accessible regions, overstates the links between both phenomena and cannot explain peaceful outcomes from climate change. This could result in maladaptive responses in those places that are stigmatized as being inherently more prone to climate-induced violence.

  • sampling bias in climate Conflict Research
    Nature Climate Change, 2018
    Co-Authors: Courtland Adams, Jon Barnett, Tobias Ide, Adrien Detges
    Abstract:

    Critics have argued that the evidence of an association between climate change and Conflict is flawed because the Research relies on a dependent variable sampling strategy1–4. Similarly, it has been hypothesized that convenience of access biases the sample of cases studied (the ‘streetlight effect’ 5 ). This also gives rise to claims that the climate–Conflict literature stigmatizes some places as being more ‘naturally’ violent6–8. Yet there has been no proof of such sampling patterns. Here we test whether climate–Conflict Research is based on such a biased sample through a systematic review of the literature. We demonstrate that Research on climate change and violent Conflict suffers from a streetlight effect. Further, studies which focus on a small number of cases in particular are strongly informed by cases where there has been Conflict, do not sample on the independent variables (climate impact or risk), and hence tend to find some association between these two variables. These biases mean that Research on climate change and Conflict primarily focuses on a few accessible regions, overstates the links between both phenomena and cannot explain peaceful outcomes from climate change. This could result in maladaptive responses in those places that are stigmatized as being inherently more prone to climate-induced violence. A systematic review shows that climate–Conflict Research tends to focus on a few accessible regions characterized by violent Conflict rather than those most vulnerable to climate change, which may inflate the perceived prevalence of links between climate change and violent Conflict.

Catherine Morse - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Tobias Ide - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Climate War in the Middle East? Drought, the Syrian Civil War and the State of Climate-Conflict Research
    Current Climate Change Reports, 2018
    Co-Authors: Tobias Ide
    Abstract:

    This article reviews existing evidence for a climate-Conflict link in Syria and examines how the respective debate reproduces three important shortcomings of climate-Conflict Research. The potential climate-Conflict link for Syria can be conceived of as a four-stage process, with various levels of scientific evidence and consensus existing for each stage: (1) climate change inducing the heavy 2006–2009 drought (plausible, but not proven); (2) massive loss of agricultural livelihoods, significantly attributable to the drought (supported by a majority of studies, but contested); (3) massive rural-to-urban migration triggered by livelihood loss in combination with other factors (supported by a majority of studies, but contested); and (4) migration intensifying existing grievances and facilitating the onset of protests and the subsequent civil war (possible, but little knowledge exists). The debate about the Syrian case reproduces three important shortcomings of climate-Conflict Research: limited dialogue between different methods, an overstatement of differences, and a lack of theoretical engagement. These shortcomings also have adverse impacts in terms of policy advice.

  • sampling bias in climate Conflict Research
    Nature Climate Change, 2018
    Co-Authors: Courtland Adams, Jon Barnett, Tobias Ide, Adrien Detges
    Abstract:

    Critics have argued that the evidence of an association between climate change and Conflict is flawed because the Research relies on a dependent variable sampling strategy1–4. Similarly, it has been hypothesized that convenience of access biases the sample of cases studied (the ‘streetlight effect’ 5 ). This also gives rise to claims that the climate–Conflict literature stigmatizes some places as being more ‘naturally’ violent6–8. Yet there has been no proof of such sampling patterns. Here we test whether climate–Conflict Research is based on such a biased sample through a systematic review of the literature. We demonstrate that Research on climate change and violent Conflict suffers from a streetlight effect. Further, studies which focus on a small number of cases in particular are strongly informed by cases where there has been Conflict, do not sample on the independent variables (climate impact or risk), and hence tend to find some association between these two variables. These biases mean that Research on climate change and Conflict primarily focuses on a few accessible regions, overstates the links between both phenomena and cannot explain peaceful outcomes from climate change. This could result in maladaptive responses in those places that are stigmatized as being inherently more prone to climate-induced violence. A systematic review shows that climate–Conflict Research tends to focus on a few accessible regions characterized by violent Conflict rather than those most vulnerable to climate change, which may inflate the perceived prevalence of links between climate change and violent Conflict.

  • Research methods for exploring the links between climate change and Conflict
    Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2017
    Co-Authors: Tobias Ide
    Abstract:

    The potential links between climate change and Conflict have received much attention in recent years, but there is little consensus on the issue in the relevant literature. So far, few methodological reflections exist in climate–Conflict Research. This is unfortunate given the tremendous innovations in methods the Research field has experienced in recent years and the potential of diverse methods to shed light on different aspects of the subject matter, thereby increasing our understanding of potential climate–Conflict links. In order to counteract this shortcoming, this paper provides a comprehensive review of the developments and innovations in methods in climate–Conflict Research. It first identifies and discusses the most common methods in the Research field: large-N statistical analysis and qualitative case study. The study goes on to evaluate four new methods that have emerged particularly since 2012: integration of statistical techniques and qualitative case studies; field experiment; risk analysis based on geographical information systems (GIS); and qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). The review provides an overview of these methods and their potentials and pitfalls when used to study climate–Conflict links. It also discusses how future Research can deal with a pluralism of methods in order to gain deeper insights into the relationship between climate change and Conflict. WIREs Clim Change 2017, 8:e456. doi: 10.1002/wcc.456 For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.

Courtland Adams - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Sampling bias in climate–Conflict Research
    Nature Climate Change, 2018
    Co-Authors: Courtland Adams, Jon Barnett, Adrien Detges
    Abstract:

    A systematic review shows that climate–Conflict Research tends to focus on a few accessible regions characterized by violent Conflict rather than those most vulnerable to climate change, which may inflate the perceived prevalence of links between climate change and violent Conflict. Critics have argued that the evidence of an association between climate change and Conflict is flawed because the Research relies on a dependent variable sampling strategy^ 1 – 4 . Similarly, it has been hypothesized that convenience of access biases the sample of cases studied (the ‘streetlight effect’^ 5 ). This also gives rise to claims that the climate–Conflict literature stigmatizes some places as being more ‘naturally’ violent^ 6 – 8 . Yet there has been no proof of such sampling patterns. Here we test whether climate–Conflict Research is based on such a biased sample through a systematic review of the literature. We demonstrate that Research on climate change and violent Conflict suffers from a streetlight effect. Further, studies which focus on a small number of cases in particular are strongly informed by cases where there has been Conflict, do not sample on the independent variables (climate impact or risk), and hence tend to find some association between these two variables. These biases mean that Research on climate change and Conflict primarily focuses on a few accessible regions, overstates the links between both phenomena and cannot explain peaceful outcomes from climate change. This could result in maladaptive responses in those places that are stigmatized as being inherently more prone to climate-induced violence.

  • sampling bias in climate Conflict Research
    Nature Climate Change, 2018
    Co-Authors: Courtland Adams, Jon Barnett, Tobias Ide, Adrien Detges
    Abstract:

    Critics have argued that the evidence of an association between climate change and Conflict is flawed because the Research relies on a dependent variable sampling strategy1–4. Similarly, it has been hypothesized that convenience of access biases the sample of cases studied (the ‘streetlight effect’ 5 ). This also gives rise to claims that the climate–Conflict literature stigmatizes some places as being more ‘naturally’ violent6–8. Yet there has been no proof of such sampling patterns. Here we test whether climate–Conflict Research is based on such a biased sample through a systematic review of the literature. We demonstrate that Research on climate change and violent Conflict suffers from a streetlight effect. Further, studies which focus on a small number of cases in particular are strongly informed by cases where there has been Conflict, do not sample on the independent variables (climate impact or risk), and hence tend to find some association between these two variables. These biases mean that Research on climate change and Conflict primarily focuses on a few accessible regions, overstates the links between both phenomena and cannot explain peaceful outcomes from climate change. This could result in maladaptive responses in those places that are stigmatized as being inherently more prone to climate-induced violence. A systematic review shows that climate–Conflict Research tends to focus on a few accessible regions characterized by violent Conflict rather than those most vulnerable to climate change, which may inflate the perceived prevalence of links between climate change and violent Conflict.

Jon Barnett - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Sampling bias in climate–Conflict Research
    Nature Climate Change, 2018
    Co-Authors: Courtland Adams, Jon Barnett, Adrien Detges
    Abstract:

    A systematic review shows that climate–Conflict Research tends to focus on a few accessible regions characterized by violent Conflict rather than those most vulnerable to climate change, which may inflate the perceived prevalence of links between climate change and violent Conflict. Critics have argued that the evidence of an association between climate change and Conflict is flawed because the Research relies on a dependent variable sampling strategy^ 1 – 4 . Similarly, it has been hypothesized that convenience of access biases the sample of cases studied (the ‘streetlight effect’^ 5 ). This also gives rise to claims that the climate–Conflict literature stigmatizes some places as being more ‘naturally’ violent^ 6 – 8 . Yet there has been no proof of such sampling patterns. Here we test whether climate–Conflict Research is based on such a biased sample through a systematic review of the literature. We demonstrate that Research on climate change and violent Conflict suffers from a streetlight effect. Further, studies which focus on a small number of cases in particular are strongly informed by cases where there has been Conflict, do not sample on the independent variables (climate impact or risk), and hence tend to find some association between these two variables. These biases mean that Research on climate change and Conflict primarily focuses on a few accessible regions, overstates the links between both phenomena and cannot explain peaceful outcomes from climate change. This could result in maladaptive responses in those places that are stigmatized as being inherently more prone to climate-induced violence.

  • sampling bias in climate Conflict Research
    Nature Climate Change, 2018
    Co-Authors: Courtland Adams, Jon Barnett, Tobias Ide, Adrien Detges
    Abstract:

    Critics have argued that the evidence of an association between climate change and Conflict is flawed because the Research relies on a dependent variable sampling strategy1–4. Similarly, it has been hypothesized that convenience of access biases the sample of cases studied (the ‘streetlight effect’ 5 ). This also gives rise to claims that the climate–Conflict literature stigmatizes some places as being more ‘naturally’ violent6–8. Yet there has been no proof of such sampling patterns. Here we test whether climate–Conflict Research is based on such a biased sample through a systematic review of the literature. We demonstrate that Research on climate change and violent Conflict suffers from a streetlight effect. Further, studies which focus on a small number of cases in particular are strongly informed by cases where there has been Conflict, do not sample on the independent variables (climate impact or risk), and hence tend to find some association between these two variables. These biases mean that Research on climate change and Conflict primarily focuses on a few accessible regions, overstates the links between both phenomena and cannot explain peaceful outcomes from climate change. This could result in maladaptive responses in those places that are stigmatized as being inherently more prone to climate-induced violence. A systematic review shows that climate–Conflict Research tends to focus on a few accessible regions characterized by violent Conflict rather than those most vulnerable to climate change, which may inflate the perceived prevalence of links between climate change and violent Conflict.